CLDSRV-992: Bound and settle the 1000-object writes in Multi-Object Delete setup - #6279
Draft
anurag4DSB wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
Contributor
Hello anurag4dsb,My role is to assist you with the merge of this Available options
Available commands
Status report is not available. |
Contributor
Incorrect fix versionThe
Considering where you are trying to merge, I expected to find at least:
Please check the |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## improvement/CLDSRV-992-9.2.36-uploadpartcopy-fixture-per-suite #6279 +/- ##
===============================================================================================
Coverage 84.36% 84.36%
===============================================================================================
Files 204 204
Lines 13162 13162
===============================================================================================
Hits 11104 11104
Misses 2058 2058
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
anurag4DSB
force-pushed
the
improvement/CLDSRV-992-9.2.36-multiobjectdelete-bounded-writes
branch
from
September 8, 2026 06:32
76f47da to
20ac8a3
Compare
…elete setup The "Multi-Object Delete Success" beforeEach uploads 1000 objects behind what looks like a concurrency limiter of 20. It is not one. objects.map() invokes all 1000 async calls synchronously; the first 20 push and the other 980 all park on the same `await Promise.race(queued)`. When the first put settles they all wake, and each splices one entry off the head of the queue regardless of whether that entry had settled, so the queue empties, every waiter's `while` test goes false, and the remaining puts fire together. Running the limiter against an instrumented stub gives a peak of 999 concurrent puts against an intended 20. That is the ServiceUnavailable seen in run 33681270087: a thousand simultaneous puts, not twenty. It also explains why one failure becomes seven. Promise.all rejects on the first error while the other puts are still in flight, so the hook throws with writes outstanding, and the bucket cannot be deleted. All four suites in this file share the bucket name multi-object-delete-234-634, so once it is left behind with objects in it, every later suite's cleanup fails with BucketNotEmpty -- which is exactly the shape of the run: one ServiceUnavailable followed by six BucketNotEmpty. Two changes, both already present on development/9.3 and newer in one form or another: - Replace the limiter with a fixed pool of 20 workers draining a shared queue. Concurrency is genuinely bounded and every put is settled before the hook returns, on the failure path too, so teardown can no longer race them. - Empty the bucket before deleting it in all four cleanup hooks. The 9.3 line gained this in 9eb5777, but that commit is an aws-sdk v3 migration of the whole file and is not something to cherry-pick onto 9.2; this is the equivalent written for the v2 client, and nothing else from it. Clears CLDSRV-992 row F10 (all seven failures). Issue: CLDSRV-992
Stacked on the uploadPartCopy fixture fix so the stress signal is not polluted by row F4/F8. Dropped before review. Precedent: a3847d6.
anurag4DSB
force-pushed
the
improvement/CLDSRV-992-9.2.36-multiobjectdelete-bounded-writes
branch
from
September 8, 2026 10:58
20ac8a3 to
28d0696
Compare
anurag4DSB
changed the base branch from
hotfix/9.2.36
to
improvement/CLDSRV-992-9.2.36-uploadpartcopy-fixture-per-suite
September 8, 2026 10:58
anurag4DSB
force-pushed
the
improvement/CLDSRV-992-9.2.36-uploadpartcopy-fixture-per-suite
branch
from
September 8, 2026 11:02
8245437 to
4bbb2af
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Intent: why does this change exist?
NEW FIX, with one part hand-written in place of a backport. The Multi-Object Delete setup uploads 1000 objects behind what looks like a concurrency limiter of 20, and it is not one: against an instrumented stub it peaks at 999 concurrent puts. That is the ServiceUnavailable in run 33681270087. Clears CLDSRV-992 row F10, all seven failures.
System impact: what's affected, including downstream?
One functional test file, setup and teardown only. No product code, no assertions touched. development/9.3 needs only the concurrency half and has #6278; it already has the cleanup half.
Preserved behavior: what explicitly stays the same?
Still 1000 objects, still nominally 20 at a time, and the hook still fails with the first error it saw. Every test body is untouched.
Intended change: what's different after this PR?
The limiter becomes a fixed pool of 20 workers draining a shared queue, so concurrency is bounded and every put has settled before the hook returns, failure path included. Separately, all four cleanup hooks now empty the bucket before deleting it. The 9.3 line gained that in
9eb5777a8, but that commit is an aws-sdk v3 migration of the whole file, so this is the equivalent written for the v2 client and nothing else from it. Together these explain the run exactly: one ServiceUnavailable then six BucketNotEmpty, because all four suites share the bucket namemulti-object-delete-234-634.Verification: how do we know this worked, or how would we know if it didn't?
The 999-vs-20 peak is measured, not inferred: the original limiter ran against an instrumented stub, and the replacement measures a peak of exactly 20 with nothing in flight at return, on the happy path and with an injected mid-run failure. s3c-ft-tests-v1 stressed 10x on this branch.